Top Law Schools

dsn32 wrote: Michigan on the other hand was horrendous. Dean Z basically talked down to me over the phone and told me my concerns were wrong (I don't see how an opinion can be wrong, but she was adamant that it was). Every time I brought up concerns about specific aspects of the school, they just insisted on me looking at the data on their website (stuff I've seen 1000x). I don't want to bash Michigan too badly on here, but I do want prospective students to know how bad of an experience I had with them. As I stated earlier in this thread, Michigan was my default from day one (born and raised in MI). After my interactions with them this cycle, there was no way I felt comfortable investing in their degree.
.

LOL thank you for this post. I had the same experience with M's admissions staff. They are useless monkeys.

michwolv wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:

michwolv wrote: It sounds like all she was saying in that e-mail is that, if debt is your only concern, don't worry so much because you can probably get a high-paying job in NYC if you want one. I don't think she is wrong.

Your argument is circular. Your statement above is the very concept that posters have been drawing into question based on available data. You refute it by saying that Michigan students don't want to be in NYC anyway. The school comes back and says, your job in NYC will clear your massive debt; we say, this is not indicated by the same data you dismissed with the assumption NYC was not important; then you say the school is right, plenty of people go to NYC from Michigan, and then there people are again saying, okay, prove it! and you can't.

I won't make a conclusive statement either way because, as you love to point out, how BigZuck or I know, we're not there? Maybe its easy to get to NYC from Michigan AND 82% of Michigan grads hate new york -- but then why would the school itself jump to new york as a definitive example?

Also, you say "Probably". Gottschalk never conditioned it; she said, you can get the job.. if she had told me you can "probably" get the job I'd have a little more respect, but still, "probably" implies 50%+ chance. As referenced above, nowhere is that conclusion supported. So its really more like "maybe" you can get the job to pay off your debt.

My argument is not circular. Try to follow:

1) Most Michigan students do not focus on NYC
2) Those that do are generally able to find work there.
3) If the above poster's only goal is a high-paying job irrespective of location, she should focus on NYC.
4) The above poster has a high likelihood of finding work in NYC.

Premises 1 & 2 are the keys here, but are not really measurable through LST. The counter-argument is far more problematic. It goes like this:

1) A lower percentage of Michigan students work in Biglaw, which is primarily based in NYC.
2) Therefore, a lower percentage of Michigan students are capable of finding work in Biglaw.

The missing premise is the percentage of the class that is seeking jobs in NYC. Without this premise, the same argument can be used to elevate Penn above Yale.

But not all of the people at Michigan seeking biglaw jobs elsewhere are finding them, obviously. Otherwise your biglaw numbers would be higher.

Saying the reason for an undesirable outcome is different than what 0Ls think is the reason does not change the fact that in aggregate, more of your class is ending up with undesirable outcomes (as BigZuck mentioned twice before).

ITT (and many others): Law students ignore math and put down 0L's for "not knowing shit".

Lmao.

Nelson wrote:ITT 0Ls try to rationalize their school choices before they even attend.

It's funny how which schools are hot on TLS changes each cycle. Last cycle it was Northwestern and Mich that were the darlings. How quickly things change.

These schools aren't viewed any differently by firms. No hiring partner is sitting around saying, "Gee I think I'll take this 3.3 from Penn instead of this one from Michigan because Michigan has lower LST stats."

Says the Penn bro who has automatic big law placement because of DAT CCNP. Get a grip.

But seriously though, we have been making fun of Michigan for more than one cycle.

JamesDean1955 wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:

Nelson wrote:ITT 0Ls try to rationalize their school choices before they even attend.

It's funny how which schools are hot on TLS changes each cycle. Last cycle it was Northwestern and Mich that were the darlings. How quickly things change.

These schools aren't viewed any differently by firms. No hiring partner is sitting around saying, "Gee I think I'll take this 3.3 from Penn instead of this one from Michigan because Michigan has lower LST stats."

lol here's to hoping none of us get a 3.3 anywhere. even an 0L can see your fucked sideways with shit grades wherever you land

Isn't 3.3 a median at some T14s? I would sure hope being at median doesn't make one fucked lol.

Not at Penn bro. DAT CCNP.

#0Llogic4lyfe

BigZuck wrote:

Nelson wrote:ITT 0Ls try to rationalize their school choices before they even attend.

It's funny how which schools are hot on TLS changes each cycle. Last cycle it was Northwestern and Mich that were the darlings. How quickly things change.

These schools aren't viewed any differently by firms. No hiring partner is sitting around saying, "Gee I think I'll take this 3.3 from Penn instead of this one from Michigan because Michigan has lower LST stats."

Says the Penn bro who has automatic big law placement because of DAT CCNP. Get a grip.

But seriously though, we have been making fun of Michigan for more than one cycle.

I am curious to know how Michigan was in style last year when they had their worst numbers ever (I think) and people are so number crazed.

Also, I applied last cycle. I did not see anyone go around claiming Michigan to be any more awesome than this cycle.

JamesDean1955 wrote:

michwolv wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:

michwolv wrote: It sounds like all she was saying in that e-mail is that, if debt is your only concern, don't worry so much because you can probably get a high-paying job in NYC if you want one. I don't think she is wrong.

Your argument is circular. Your statement above is the very concept that posters have been drawing into question based on available data. You refute it by saying that Michigan students don't want to be in NYC anyway. The school comes back and says, your job in NYC will clear your massive debt; we say, this is not indicated by the same data you dismissed with the assumption NYC was not important; then you say the school is right, plenty of people go to NYC from Michigan, and then there people are again saying, okay, prove it! and you can't.

I won't make a conclusive statement either way because, as you love to point out, how BigZuck or I know, we're not there? Maybe its easy to get to NYC from Michigan AND 82% of Michigan grads hate new york -- but then why would the school itself jump to new york as a definitive example?

Also, you say "Probably". Gottschalk never conditioned it; she said, you can get the job.. if she had told me you can "probably" get the job I'd have a little more respect, but still, "probably" implies 50%+ chance. As referenced above, nowhere is that conclusion supported. So its really more like "maybe" you can get the job to pay off your debt.

My argument is not circular. Try to follow:

1) Most Michigan students do not focus on NYC
2) Those that do are generally able to find work there.
3) If the above poster's only goal is a high-paying job irrespective of location, she should focus on NYC.
4) The above poster has a high likelihood of finding work in NYC.

Premises 1 & 2 are the keys here, but are not really measurable through LST. The counter-argument is far more problematic. It goes like this:

1) A lower percentage of Michigan students work in Biglaw, which is primarily based in NYC.
2) Therefore, a lower percentage of Michigan students are capable of finding work in Biglaw.

The missing premise is the percentage of the class that is seeking jobs in NYC. Without this premise, the same argument can be used to elevate Penn above Yale.

But not all of the people at Michigan seeking biglaw jobs elsewhere are finding them, obviously. Otherwise your biglaw numbers would be higher.

Saying the reason for an undesirable outcome is different than what 0Ls think is the reason does not change the fact that in aggregate, more of your class is ending up with undesirable outcomes (as BigZuck mentioned twice before).

ITT (and many others): Law students ignore math and put down 0L's for "not knowing shit".

Lmao.

This is because Biglaw is far easier to land in NYC than any other market. This is true from every school. I assumed you knew this.

I know, but how does that make Michigan look any better? Students choose the harder path and that's why more of them fail so it's all good?

And also, I think you're downplaying just how many Michigan people are east coasters who would love to work in NYC. I've met tons of them.

JamesDean1955 wrote:Consulting gigs and midlaw $100k+ jobs and any of those broad categories (that would be desirable and, more importantly, would allow one to pay off their debt) that you're referring to are scarce from any school, even HYS. Should we focus only on these statistics? No of course not. But going by the data available

There actually is no data to confirm anything about what the life of a midlaw or business category grad entails. You are using TLS conventional wisdom as your proof, not data. The only thing resembling something concrete is the bimodial salary chart which still has some midpaying jobs and a median salary adjusted to near 70k. For a starting salary, for all employed law grads, that is great. Now let me see 1/3/5/10 year graphs and more school specific data of the same nature. There are a million flaws in the data and so we assume the very worst. But the data is shit.

Sigh. Well I tried. No one here has convinced me otherwise, and apparently I am failing to convince anyone to move from their positions. People either fall into one of two camps on these topics and remain divided. Both are great schools, and god willing we all get jobs.

The data is shit. Deal with it.

Dropping into this thread to serve up anecdote in the face of statistics: I chose Mich over some East Coast-ish places (didn't apply to Penn) at least in part because it because I don't have much of an interest in NYC/DC biglaw and instead want second tier city mid-law. I suppose I'll be doing Mich's placement stats a disservice, but the ability to lead a fulfilling life in addition to work matters more to me than prestige, and I felt like Mich did a good job of splitting the difference between placing well into the market where I'd like to work while leaving doors open nationally should I change my mind.

JamesDean1955 wrote:I know, but how does that make Michigan look any better? Students choose the harder path and that's why more of them fail so it's all good?

And also, I think you're downplaying just how many Michigan people are east coasters who would love to work in NYC. I've met tons of them.

No, it's not all good, but it's not any different than peer schools for a prospective student comparing schools. You want an easier time getting to Biglaw? Then bid NYC. Penn vs. Michigan will not change your prospects substantially either way. And if you are dead-set on California? Well, you are fighting an uphill battle from either school.

As to your second point--no doubt. Many people like the ones you met would be happy to work in NYC. Perhaps as much as a quarter of the entire student body. And 18% of got it. So where is the disparity? 171 students from New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Connecticut combined matriculated between 2009-2012, out of about 1440 total students. That's about 12%. The percentage from Michigan alone is 17%, another 8% from Illinois/Ohio, and 7% from California. The east coast is hardly overrepresented.

sinfiery wrote:The data is shit. Deal with it.

Agreed. But what do we do then? Just rely on anecdotes? How far down the line of schools do we accept the "lolno man, self-selection" or whatever else we hear? Do we stop at the T13? T14? T18? First tier (whatever that is)? Cooley?

And how many anecdotes should we collect before our fears are allayed?

BigZuck wrote:

sinfiery wrote:The data is shit. Deal with it.

Agreed. But what do we do then? Just rely on anecdotes? How far down the line of schools do we accept the "lolno man, self-selection" or whatever else we hear? Do we stop at the T13? T14? T18? First tier (whatever that is)? Cooley?

And how many anecdotes should we collect before our fears are allayed?

T13, with some consideration for location and debt between those and in rare cases USC/UCLA/UT imo.

I wasn't really arguing a practical change in method, more supporting that there is a clear theoretical basis for.the Mich people ITT and the discrepency between Penn and Mich is in no way outside of that standard deviation.

BigZuck wrote:

sinfiery wrote:The data is shit. Deal with it.

Agreed. But what do we do then? Just rely on anecdotes? How far down the line of schools do we accept the "lolno man, self-selection" or whatever else we hear? Do we stop at the T13? T14? T18? First tier (whatever that is)? Cooley?

And how many anecdotes should we collect before our fears are allayed?

every anecdote. we must speak to every graduating student at every T20 law school and find out exactly what their individual experiences were. Then and only then shall we be imbued with the requisite knowledge and feel the weight of our surety!

BigZuck wrote:

sinfiery wrote:The data is shit. Deal with it.

Agreed. But what do we do then? Just rely on anecdotes? How far down the line of schools do we accept the "lolno man, self-selection" or whatever else we hear? Do we stop at the T13? T14? T18? First tier (whatever that is)? Cooley?

And how many anecdotes should we collect before our fears are allayed?

I think that for the most part, HYS is pretty accurate. Other than that, the rest of the T14 are going to be pretty comparable in most respects (although Georgetown is questionable given the size of its class. The sheer number of students who are straight up unemployed is troubling). The kinds of granular distinctions that 0L's are likely to make using incomplete data (I was guilty of this before law school as well) do not reflect reality.

Within that list, choose based on cost, fit, and individual schools' strengths. Columbia, for example, definitely has an advantage in NYC biglaw. There is no question NYC firms will dig lower in a class at Columbia than Michigan or Penn or Northwestern or Berkeley. If you are interested in federal government work (as I found), that difference is completely negated. Or if you want to work in Chicago or Philadelphia or San Francisco or Detroit, you would be silly to choose Columbia over the others at equal cost. It is not more "prestigious" there.

We are at a fry cry from having any sort of certainty for such jokes. We don't even have a clear picture of STARTING salaries muchless x number of years out for an investment that cost way too much and lasts a lifetime.


The data is so bad, sometimes I think we need to make a LSN for law students to self report because fuck the ABA they suck.

But then I remember payscale and just feel really sad. And my phone has 1% battery. Meh.

sinfiery wrote:We are at a fry cry from having any sort of certainty for such jokes. We don't even have a clear picture of STARTING salaries muchless x number of years out for an investment that cost way too much and lasts a lifetime.


The data is so bad, sometimes I think we need to make a LSN for law students to self report because fuck the ABA they suck.

But then I remember payscale and just feel really sad. And my phone has 1% battery. Meh.

lol sinf you're on a roll here man, its really you vs the data today.


edit: also I always nuke my phone battery on TLS #lawapplicantproblems

I am a data hater and will be til the day I step foot in a lawschool. Then ill forget and life moves on.


Yeah, seriously. Wish my phone bad a removable battery sometimes

BigZuck wrote:

sinfiery wrote:The data is shit. Deal with it.

Agreed. But what do we do then? Just rely on anecdotes? How far down the line of schools do we accept the "lolno man, self-selection" or whatever else we hear? Do we stop at the T13? T14? T18? First tier (whatever that is)? Cooley?

And how many anecdotes should we collect before our fears are allayed?

No, but that's a fair question. I don't know if you'll make any headway on this, but I would honestly try to ask the schools to look at their average offer GPAs and then take into account each school's different medians. That's your key to seeing how deep in each school's class any given student will or will not be competitive. I've only seen average offer GPA mentioned on these forums from Penn for Cleary, STB, DPW, and Weil, and it is amazing how little difference there is between the two schools' average offer GPA when the difference in medians is taken into account.

On another note, most people who have been on TLS for more than a couple years know that this forum's biggest weakness is that it acts as an echo chamber. The process is always the same: somebody with 10,000 posts to his/her name says something authoritative, a few up-and-coming gunners who just landed 170s and suddenly think that means they know (or perhaps worse, can deduce) something about legal employment repeat it adamantly as a fact, and, before you know it, TLS is inundated with this totally factual common knowledge. Right now, the common wisdom is that Michigan is a shitty school on the decline because Michigan's NLJ 250/Article III clerkship total percentage is substantially lower than Penn's and has been since the market crashed for c/o 2011.

People started trying to connect the dots to provide all sorts of hypotheses for why Michigan's NLJ percentage is suddenly noticeably smaller than Penn's: Michigan lacks a home market, Detroit is struggling (this one always amuses me - Detroit proper has been in the shitter for decades, not just since 2008), the class size is too big, firms don't want to fly to Ann Arbor, etc. And of course, it's much more fun to try to play TLS sleuth and figure out why Michigan is "on the decline" instead of looking at pre-recession statistics to discover that Michigan's NLJ percentage has historically lagged Penn by 12-15%. And yet, back then, more-or-less every single Michigan (or Penn, or Duke, or UVA, or Berkeley, or NU, etc.) student could land a big law gig at 2L OCI if he/she wanted because firms simply couldn't get enough warm bodies in the building for their work. Back then, most median (and many below-median) students were more concerned with figuring out which of the numerous callbacks they would turn down than whether they would be able to land a single offer. And even back then, the same firms almost uniformly went just as deep into each school's class for the same students.

So what has changed now? Obviously it's not the same story for most median students these days, and there's certainly much greater uncertainty for people entering OCI. But nothing has changed about how the firms view any of these schools, and nothing has made any of these post-recession firms suddenly start digging deeper in some schools' class than they do their peers. I don't know what it is about these forums that makes 0Ls try to act like they're solving the da vinci code of law school placement rankings, but those of you who do end up at a firm in 4-5 years are going to be terribly disappointed when your friends in recruiting reveal that there's no magical secret awaiting you regarding granular distinctions between these schools. My NYC firm regularly brings in more Penn students than Michigan students, but I can assure you we offer students interested in NYC biglaw from the same percentage of each school's class.

FlightoftheEarls wrote:

BigZuck wrote:

sinfiery wrote:The data is shit. Deal with it.

Agreed. But what do we do then? Just rely on anecdotes? How far down the line of schools do we accept the "lolno man, self-selection" or whatever else we hear? Do we stop at the T13? T14? T18? First tier (whatever that is)? Cooley?

And how many anecdotes should we collect before our fears are allayed?

No, but that's a fair question. I don't know if you'll make any headway on this, but I would honestly try to ask the schools to look at their average offer GPAs and then take into account each school's different medians. That's your key to seeing how deep in each school's class any given student will or will not be competitive. I've only seen average offer GPA mentioned on these forums from Penn for Cleary, STB, DPW, and Weil, and it is amazing how little difference there is between the two schools' average offer GPA when the difference in medians is taken into account.

On another note, most people who have been on TLS for more than a couple years know that this forum's biggest weakness is that it acts as an echo chamber. The process is always the same: somebody with 10,000 posts to his/her name says something authoritative, a few up-and-coming gunners who just landed 170s and suddenly think that means they know (or perhaps worse, can deduce) something about legal employment repeat it adamantly as a fact, and, before you know it, TLS is inundated with this totally factual common knowledge. Right now, the common wisdom is that Michigan is a shitty school on the decline because Michigan's NLJ 250/Article III clerkship total percentage is substantially lower than Penn's and has been since the market crashed for c/o 2011.

People started trying to connect the dots to provide all sorts of hypotheses for why Michigan's NLJ percentage is suddenly noticeably smaller than Penn's: Michigan lacks a home market, Detroit is struggling (this one always amuses me - Detroit proper has been in the shitter for decades, not just since 2008), the class size is too big, firms don't want to fly to Ann Arbor, etc. And of course, it's much more fun to try to play TLS sleuth and figure out why Michigan is "on the decline" instead of looking at pre-recession statistics to discover that Michigan's NLJ percentage has historically lagged Penn by 12-15%. And yet, back then, more-or-less every single Michigan (or Penn, or Duke, or UVA, or Berkeley, or NU, etc.) student could land a big law gig at 2L OCI if he/she wanted because firms simply couldn't get enough warm bodies in the building for their work. Back then, most median (and many below-median) students were more concerned with figuring out which of the numerous callbacks they would turn down than whether they would be able to land a single offer. And even back then, the same firms almost uniformly went just as deep into each school's class for the same students.

So what has changed now? Obviously it's not the same story for most median students these days, and there's certainly much greater uncertainty for people entering OCI. But nothing has changed about how the firms view any of these schools, and nothing has made any of these post-recession firms suddenly start digging deeper in some schools' class than they do their peers. I don't know what it is about these forums that makes 0Ls try to act like they're solving the da vinci code of law school placement rankings, but those of you who do end up at a firm in 4-5 years are going to be terribly disappointed when your friends in recruiting reveal that there's no magical secret awaiting you regarding granular distinctions between these schools. My NYC firm regularly brings in more Penn students than Michigan students, but I can assure you we offer students interested in NYC biglaw from the same percentage of each school's class.

hear, hear

sinfiery wrote:The data is shit. Deal with it.

We just received a spreadsheet on where the class of 2014 will end up and it is impressive.

westphillybandr wrote:

sinfiery wrote:The data is shit. Deal with it.

We just received a spreadsheet on where the class of 2014 will end up and it is impressive.

I'm assuming for Penn? I'm attending next year and I'm curious to see this.

michwolv wrote: No, it's not all good, but it's not any different than peer schools for a prospective student comparing schools. You want an easier time getting to Biglaw? Then bid NYC. Penn vs. Michigan will not change your prospects substantially either way.

Nonsense. Michigan put 94.4% of its grads into FT/LT/JD jobs in 2007. For the class of 2012, Michigan put 82.4% of grads into FT/LT/JD jobs. For the class of 2012, Penn placed 94.4% of its grads into FT/LT/JD jobs (same as Michigan in 2007). There's a clear differential in placement power between these two schools. Michigan didn't suddenly start recruiting a large number of students who don't want to work as lawyers.

Would definitely go with Penn in the OP's situation (which has no doubt long been decided).

FlightoftheEarls wrote:No, but that's a fair question. I don't know if you'll make any headway on this, but I would honestly try to ask the schools to look at their average offer GPAs and then take into account each school's different medians. That's your key to seeing how deep in each school's class any given student will or will not be competitive. I've only seen average offer GPA mentioned on these forums from Penn for Cleary, STB, DPW, and Weil, and it is amazing how little difference there is between the two schools' average offer GPA when the difference in medians is taken into account.

* * *

So what has changed now? Obviously it's not the same story for most median students these days, and there's certainly much greater uncertainty for people entering OCI. But nothing has changed about how the firms view any of these schools, and nothing has made any of these post-recession firms suddenly start digging deeper in some schools' class than they do their peers. I don't know what it is about these forums that makes 0Ls try to act like they're solving the da vinci code of law school placement rankings, but those of you who do end up at a firm in 4-5 years are going to be terribly disappointed when your friends in recruiting reveal that there's no magical secret awaiting you regarding granular distinctions between these schools. My NYC firm regularly brings in more Penn students than Michigan students, but I can assure you we offer students interested in NYC biglaw from the same percentage of each school's class.

+1. It used to be Berkeley that 0Ls liked to say was a TTT in decline. Now they've trained their sights on Michigan, and it rattles around the echo chamber. In another thread an 0L was claiming Virginia was in a subtier below the other lower T14s. Maybe they're next.